Global Warming? “There’s some indication in the data that the pause is leaning toward a small reversal of the 20th-century trends.”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to a study of the Southern Hemisphere, the warming we should have experienced global warming driven expansion of the Hadley Cell in the south and contraction of the JetStream to higher latitudes is being masked by the recovery of the Ozone Layer over Antarctica.

Shrinking Ozone Hole, Climate Change Are Causing Atmospheric “Tug of War”

The Southern Hemisphere jet stream is shifting, bringing more rain to some spots and less to others

By Chelsea HarveyE&E News on March 26, 2020

But the ozone hole had another effect on the planet: It caused major atmospheric changes in the Southern Hemisphere.

With less ozone trapping solar radiation higher in the atmosphere, the stratosphere began to cool. The jet stream shifted toward the South Pole. The warm, wet tropics expanded, and the dry zone below the tropics shifted southward, as well. Weather patterns in certain parts of the Southern Hemisphere began to change.

As it turns out, it’s had a noticeable effect on the Southern Hemisphere’s atmosphere. Since about the year 2000, there’s been a pause in the shifting of the jet stream and the other changes caused by the declining ozone.

These are the findings in a study published yesterday in Nature.

“What we showed is that after the year 2000, the effects of ozone recovery have actually been balancing the effects of increasing CO2, such that the position [of the jet stream] has remained approximately constant,” Banerjee told E&E News. “And that has been referred to previously in the literature as the ‘tug of war’ between those two effects.”

It’s unclear what will happen in the future, as the ozone layer continues to recover and the planet continues to warm.

There’s some indication in the data that the pause is leaning toward a small reversal of the 20th-century trends. This suggests that the ozone recovery is currently a stronger influence on the Southern Hemisphere’s atmosphere than greenhouse gas emissions, said Alexey Karpechko, a scientist at the Finnish Meteorological Institute, in a published comment on the new research.

“This is a crucial contribution to the long-standing debate about the relative role of these two factors in past and future circulation trends,” he wrote.

Read more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shrinking-ozone-hole-climate-change-are-causing-atmospheric-tug-of-war/

The abstract of the study;

A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol

Antara BanerjeeJohn C. FyfeLorenzo M. PolvaniDarryn Waugh & Kai-Lan Chang 

Observations show robust near-surface trends in Southern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation towards the end of the twentieth century, including a poleward shift in the mid-latitude jet1,2, a positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode1,3,4,5,6 and an expansion of the Hadley cell7,8. It has been established that these trends were driven by ozone depletion in the Antarctic stratosphere due to emissions of ozone-depleting substances9,10,11. Here we show that these widely reported circulation trends paused, or slightly reversed, around the year 2000. Using a pattern-based detection and attribution analysis of atmospheric zonal wind, we show that the pause in circulation trends is forced by human activities, and has not occurred owing only to internal or natural variability of the climate system. Furthermore, we demonstrate that stratospheric ozone recovery, resulting from the Montreal Protocol, is the key driver of the pause. Because pre-2000 circulation trends have affected precipitation12,13,14, and potentially ocean circulation and salinity15,16,17, we anticipate that a pause in these trends will have wider impacts on the Earth system. Signatures of the effects of the Montreal Protocol and the associated stratospheric ozone recovery might therefore manifest, or have already manifested, in other aspects of the Earth system.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2120-4

Sadly the full study is paywalled, but I think we get the idea.

Whether we accept the study or not, either way this is bad news for climate science.

If we accept the study, climate models calibrated against pre-1980 temperatures are running way too hot, because in the pre-1980s period the anthropogenic global warming signature was being augmented by the deterioration of the ozone layer.

I’m not talking about a small calibration error. if the ozone layer recovery is strong enough to stop southern warming in its tracks the expansion of the Hadley Cell and contraction of the jetstream, given the vast amount of CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere in the last 20 years, then the deterioration of the ozone layer in the years leading up to the 1980s may have contributed substantially to the pre-1980s observed warming.

On the other hand, accepting the study means accepting that two powerful opposing forcings can almost perfectly balance each other for two decades when they move into opposition to each other. It is not impossible that two independent forcings have the same magnitude, but it is not terribly likely either. The easiest way to explain two powerful independent opposed forcings which just happen to perfectly balance each other, without the uncomfortable coincidence of perfect balance, is to assume neither forcing actually exists.

Correction (EW): Nick points out the study didn’t actually say the tug of war would stop southern warming in its tracks, they said other impacts should be investigated. I extrapolated too much into the suggestion that the Hadley cell is now contracting, the opposite of what CO2 is supposed to be causing.

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Global Warming? “There’s some indication in the data that the pause is leaning toward a small reversal of the 20th-century trends.”

  1. This article is more drivel and excuse making for the purposes of gaining grants and causing a massively unwanted socialist revolution. From the people who can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather! Or explain past climate changes

    • The fact it leaves out the reversal on CFCs reduction, achieved as it was over decades of intent scrutiny (they’re now worried about cfcs in inhalers… really… really??) by China suddenly pumping out so many tonnes of the stuff, without explanation and to the extent that undoes any work of the rest of the world, slaughters any credibility this paper might have had.

      Progressive Western problems for Progressive Western Grants

      • CFCs first did not destroy any ozone because that claim was a hoax perpetrated by Dupont Chemical. They paid a scientist to cobble the data and then lobbied the data to Congress. The rest is history. The scientist confessed 20 years later after Dupont’s HFC patent expired.

        Second, no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere (including ozone) can warm Earth’s surface and the climate because they are always colder than the surface. This means any downwelling IR would be reflected back upward (to space). This is simple thermodynamics and not rocket science.

        In particular, sunlight warms the surface, it transfers 85+% of this absorbed energy by conduction and convection to the air, which then rises and adiabatically cools at altitude. The water evaporated in this process also carries energy upward, with the latent heat released at altitude.

        Only about 15% or less of solar energy input is released as upward IR radiation, which can be absorbed by some gases in the atmosphere. However, these gases can only re-radiate at the same or lower temperatures, which means the surface is always hotter and cannot and will not absorb this IR, but instead reflect the radiation back upward.

        It is important to note that the models used for the junk science that “greenhouse gases” can warm Earth’s surface do not have night-time, just 24/7 sunlight. Earth sheds energy to space in great quantities during the night, an effect by radiative gases (CO2 and water vapor) that has serious consequences on Earth’s temperatures.

        • It really is sad how people cling to bad science.
          It doesn’t matter what the temperature of the atmosphere is compared to the temperature of the ground. So long as the atmosphere is warmer than space, it will cause warming of the ground.

          • MarkW you’re right. Or if they are confused, another way to say it, if the sky is less cold, then less heat transfers to it. There’s lots of ways to wrap one’s head around the concept.

        • Ozone loss was mainly due to El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo eruptions. Sulphate aerosols destroy ozone. By their usual naive data processing : everything is reduced to a multidecadal “trend”, they manage to ignore the volcanic events and blend it into a slide they could blame on human activity.

          It was NOT the Montreal Protocol which “saved the ozone” it was the lack of similar major stratospheric eruptions, which allowed a gradual, natural recovery.

          The paper looks at several reanalysis datasets for the climatic changes but attribution comes from climate model “experiments”. Models which are known not to work are used to draw the conclusions they were programmed to produce.

          The paper is paywalled but there is a free online viewing available.

          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2120-4

        • Charles Higley wrote, “no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere (including ozone) can warm Earth’s surface and the climate because they are always colder than the surface.”

          I am so, so, so tired of this “sky-dragon slayer” nonsense. ☹️

          Please, for the love of your own brain cells, STAY AWAY from the evil, lying, crackpot Principia-Scientific International (PSI) web site, and their idiotic Sky Dragon book — unless you LIKE being lied to and confused, and LIKE losing arguments and having people with STEM educations dismiss your opinions.

          If you’d like to learn what science really tells us about climate change, CO2, ozone, and other so-called “greenhouse gases,” here’s a good list of high quality resources:

          https://tinyurl.com/learnmore4

          It includes:
          ● accurate introductory climatology info
          ● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
          ● information about climate impacts
          ● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the climate debate
          ● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides of the issue

        • Quote :CFCs first did not destroy any ozone because that claim was a hoax perpetrated by Dupont Chemical…
          I would add that Dupont paid that well known “Crim. Organ.” “Greenpeace” as well “Friends of the Earth” & other Loony Greenies Mega $ to have CFC banned …
          Why ???
          Patent on CFC manufacturing by Dupont had expired ??

    • Wasn’t there a study a few years back out of one of the California universities on the rate constant for one the reactions in ozone destruction by chlorofluorocarbons being to low to account for observed ozone depletion?

      • Ozone depletion was a test to see if incoherent, hysterical, conclusions based upon incomplete and inadequate observations and absurd assumptions could be turned into world-wide, overlord level, control. Results were encouraging, hence, CO2 being cast as the molecule of doom that can be blamed for everything bad that happens on the planet.

        These wailing Cassandra’s of climate doom need to get a grip and understand that they have less than a human life time of, somewhat adequate, observations of anything relating to ozone or climate and, if they stop messing with the data and wait patiently for a couple hundred years, they’ll have enough data to, maybe…JUST MAYBE…know what’s going on.

        Rant/Off

        Max

  2. Congrads, Worrall, you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. Ozone hole and CO2 climate theories are matching bits of climate bunkum. When the E zealots sold the ozone story so easily that tiny amounts of an inert gas leaking from old refrigerators could actually change the climate it was easy to sell policy makers on the devil horror of “CARBON.””!!!

  3. So ozone change in the stratosphere where UV/EUV is intercepted & thermalized is more of a factor than a change in CO2 concentration in the troposphere where the GHE is in play.

    I’d call that unsettled science as UV/EUV flux has changed a lot more than TSI over the past 70 years.

    Does anyone think the GCM’s capture this variability in their CG simulations?

    • By Chelsea Harvey, E&E News on March 26, 2020

      But the ozone hole had another effect on the planet: It caused major atmospheric changes in the Southern Hemisphere.

      With less ozone trapping solar radiation higher in the atmosphere, the stratosphere began to cool/b>. The jet stream shifted toward the South Pole. The warm, wet tropics expanded, and the dry zone below the tropics shifted southward, as well. Weather patterns in certain parts of the Southern Hemisphere began to change.

      So Chelsea Harvey is stating that whenever the ozone hole, an area deficient of ozone (O3), forms in the Southern Hemisphere’s stratosphere, …. high atop over Antarctica, … then incoming solar radiation will not be blocked (absorbed), …. Thus, the lack of ozone (O3) causing the stratosphere to cool and the surface to warm.

      WOWEEEEEE, ….. that thar ozone (O3) just gotta be the most powerful “global warming” gas molecule of all, …..considering the fact that earth’s atmosphere only contains an average 0.000004% O3.

      Percentage of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere
      Carbon dioxide (CO2) —- 0.0400% ———— 400.0 ppm
      Methane (CH4) ———– 0.00017% ————- 1.70 ppm
      Nitrous oxide (N2O) —— 0.00003% ———— 0.30 ppm
      Ozone (O3) —————- 0.000004% ———– 0.04 ppm

        • Ozone at 8ppm can absorb most UV radiation, but CO2 at 400ppm can’t have any impact on IR radiation. At least that’s what some people keep telling me.

          • It is the O2 that is absorbing most of the UV radiation …… and O3 is the by-product.

            That’s why no UV radiation in wintertime Antarctica results in an “ozone hole”, ….. or to be scientifically correct, …… a “hole in the ozone”. 😊

          • Yes! The more diluted (deluded?!) the more effective the gas is in controlling global temperature — it’s the new homeopathic physics.

  4. The earth’s MAGNETIC POLES are indeed shifting.. Not anything to do with this ?? Climate change.. Yes indeed CLIMATE change is happening BUT it’s happening because of Earth’s Magnetic Poles are shifting… The poles have shifted before..Our weather patterns are changing because of the Pole shifting..

      • Have you seen all that iron ore we’ve been digging up? Just needs more grants and this could be as big as plant food.

        • Right on, observa, ……. the “north” magnetic pole has just gotta be shifting southward because of all the iron ore that has been dug up in Alaska, Canada and upper Great Lakes areas during the past 150+ years and transported south to the steel mills and the steel being shipped everywhere.

          Yours truly, …… Rabuf Eritas

    • “Our weather patterns are changing because of the Pole shifting”

      There is no evidence the weather patterns are changing on a permanent basis. Weather patterns change all the time, they are never quite the same, but they do repeat over time in a general pattern that is fairly predictable.

    • Correlation is not causation. Unless you can come up with a mechanism that can be proven, speculation remains just speculation.

  5. Eric,
    I don’t think you “get the idea”. The pause discussed in the paper is related to wind circulations shifting
    near the south pole and has nothing to do with temperature changes. It has nothing to do with the
    “pause” in global warming that the cartoon at the start references.

    • The study authors postulate that the CFC driven deterioration of the ozone layer, the ozone hole, was responsible for the expansion of the Hadley cell, and a contraction of the Southern jet stream towards higher latitudes.

      Global warming also allegedly causes these effects.

      Since 2000 the Hadley Cell has contracted back towards the equator and the jet stream has expanded. The authors claim this is because the ozone recovery is having a greater influence than CO2.

      The Hadley cell affects rainfall and transports heat from the equator to around 30 degrees latitude.

      • Eric,
        “was responsible for the expansion of the Hadley cell, and a contraction of the Southern jet stream towards higher latitudes.

        Global warming also allegedly causes these effects.”

        So? Izaak is quite right. Neither the article nor the paper say anything about temperature trends. It talks about trends in wind pattern. Your opening sentence

        “According to a study of the Southern Hemisphere, the warming we should have experienced in the south is being masked by the recovery of the Ozone Layer over Antarctica.”

        is quite wrong. The article says nothing about “the warming we should have experienced in the south”. It says nothing about warming at all. Consequently,
        “If we accept the study, climate models calibrated against pre-1980 temperatures are running way too hot”
        is also nonsense. The study says nothing like that.

        • Fair point, updated. The Hadley cell is contracting and the jet stream is wandering further North, but the paper skirts around inferring what this might do to temperature.

        • The article says nothing about “the warming we should have experienced in the south”. It says nothing about warming at all.

          The following sentence appears on my screen in red print:

          With less ozone trapping solar radiation higher in the atmosphere, the stratosphere began to cool.

          Most of my 3rd grade students could figure out that more cooling implies less warming, and they haven’t even heard about Aristotle.

          • “Most of my 3rd grade students could figure out that more cooling implies less warming”
            In fact, GHGs induce at the same time surface warming and stratospheric cooling. They go together.

          • Nick: “In fact, GHGs induce at the same time surface warming and stratospheric cooling. They go together.”
            But if one is growing relative to the other than its effect can be assumed to be stronger. Imagine Shaquille O’Neal and I were playing a game of one-on-one, and we headed toward the basket together. Shaq’s physical properties would most likely overwhelm mine.

          • Nick Stokes – March 27, 2020 at 2:02 am

            In fact, GHGs induce at the same time (via radiation) surface warming and stratospheric cooling. They go together.

            Nick S, the above is truly a brilliant statement, ……. BRILLIANT, …… I say.

            But, Nick, you only told “half” the story.

            And the other “half” of the story is “ In fact, GHGs induce at the same time (via both radiation & conduction) surface cooling and stratospheric warming. They go together.

            Cheers

          • Global warmists have a long history of discarding any data that doesn’t support their claims.

          • In reply to Nick Stokes,

            A reduction in cloud cover will also cause stratospheric cooling. There was a sudden unexplained observational change in high latitude cloud cover (in specific regions that match temperature changes in those regions), in 2000.

            Clouds reflect long and short wave radiation. Ozone absorbs UV. There is ozone in the stratosphere.

            Less reflected light to space, hence results in stratospheric cooling as there is less UV light for the in the stratosphere ozone to absorb.

            In reply to the specific observation and the logical structure of the problem that we are trying to solve.

            Observation:

            What we showed is that after the year 2000, ….

            …the effects of ozone recovery have actually been balancing the effects of increasing CO2, such that the position [of the jet stream] has remained approximately constant,” Banerjee told E&E News.

            “And that has been referred to previously in the literature as the ‘tug of war’ between those two effects.”

            The authors have made a mistake.

            It can be unequivocally proved (by finding and linking observations in peer reviewed papers, that can only have one possible ’cause’, something physical in the earth that we missed, not a theory, some physical) that there is almost no AGW. (See comments.)

            There hence cannot be a tug a war between AGW and anything else. No tug a wars allowed.

        • Indeed. This article’s headline refers to “global warming” when the paper it cites discusses “Southern Hemisphere circulation trends”.

          Aside from that, *has* there been a “pause” in the rate of southern hemisphere warming over the past ~20 years – since 2000?

          Not according to HadCRUT4 SH. The rate of southern hemisphere warming in the ~20 years since 2000 (+0.10 C/dec) isn’t statistically different from the the rate of warming in the 20 years leading up to 2000 (+0.11 C/dec): http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1980/to:2000/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1980/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:2000/trend

        • “The study says nothing like that.”

          But the implication is clear.

          “What we showed is that after the year 2000, the effects of ozone recovery have actually been balancing the effects of increasing CO2″

          You’ll have to remind me, what is the supposed effect of increasing CO2?

          • “You’ll have to remind me, what is the supposed effect of increasing CO2?”

            Why, they must be talking about warming.

            Ya gotta talk about warming if you want your human-caused climate change scam grant.

          • Increasing CO2 concentration means global greening. This has actually been observed recently, unlike the warming effect. Plants love the extra CO2 fertilisation.

          • Further anecdotal evidence that an obnoxious trait in otherwise intelligent people is the ability to be willfully obtuse. People often farcically want to pretend that information is never conveyed by inference, implication and innuendo.
            Let’s all just pretend like everyone means exactly what they say and only what they say… irony and sarcasm, for instance, don’t exist – that’ll be fun!
            Pity the hapless husband who thinks his wife actually meant it when she icily replies, “fine, go ahead” when he tells her he can’t possibly get to her Saturday to do list because he’s going fishing.

      • And they write this during a time when there is a record large ozone hole?? Where is all this “closing” of the ozone hole, then?

        “Using a pattern-based detection and attribution analysis of atmospheric zonal wind, we show that the pause in circulation trends is forced by human activities, and has not occurred owing only to internal or natural variability of the climate system.”

        So it is forced y human activity, is it? And they proved this? There are many assumptions behind this claim of “proof” that simply can’t add up. Ozone over Antarctica rising and falling in concentration vents (or not) huge amounts of heat into space.

        There are just better explanations of these phenomena:

        From http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/qblu_website/Publication.html

        Dr Qing-Bin Lu, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change” was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages), available online at: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732 ; an earlier version was published at http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6844 .

        QB Lu, “What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2?” Journal of Cosmology 8, 1846-1862(2010).

        QB Lu, “Dissociative Electron Transfer Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change”, Physics Reports 487, 141-167(2010), (IF= 20)

        QB Lu, “Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 118501 (2009) (IF= 7.2).

  6. There is a pretty simple explanation for the warming after the super El Nino 2015-16. I have carried out a research study for reasons and the results are in the blog of mine: https://www.climatexam.com/blog-1
    (The second story). The original research study for those needing a complete scientific grounding: http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30174/56612

    The cause is the unpredicted increase of shortwave radiation increase on the surface. The sun is not guilty but on the contrary, solar insolation has been in declining mode since 2000. A new finding in my research was that SW radiation has caused over 50 % of the global warming impacts of the super El Ninos 1998-99 and 2015-16..

    Dr. Spencer has had other explanations for the recent high monthly temperature UAH readings. Let us see, what is his explanation for the coming March temperatures. I recommend him to check the CERES data. Unfortunately, there is almost a delay of one year.

    • “There is a pretty simple explanation for the warming after the super El Nino 2015-16.”

      Speaking of El Nino, the ENSO meter keeps edging more towards El Nino territory.

  7. “Small reversal? Small reversal?” Here’s the small reversal:

    https://theearthintime.com/all-recent.jpg
    (Per 72 million NOAA adjusted records in GHCN 2007-2019)

    I can’t believe they used the word “pause.” ‘Hey, wait a minute,’ he said briefly, ‘what are you up to???’

    “The easiest way to explain two powerful independent opposed forcings which just happen to perfectly balance each other, without the uncomfortable coincidence of perfect balance, is to assume neither forcing actually exists.”

    Exactly. Perfect. Thank you for saying that, Eric Worrall.

        • windlord-sun

          “I know that, but you’d think they’d steer a wide circle around the word, anyway.”
          _____________

          Why would a paper that explicitly addresses ‘a pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends’ steer away from using the word “pause”?

          • It’s just a side-observation by me, with irony.

            I’m surprised they used the word “pause” in even the title of the paper.

            Why? Because a battle in the war over “Is there abnormal warming in the world” was/is sometimes fought around the word “pause.” Some advocates of climate realism (formerly: skeptics) claim the warming trend has “paused” and advocates of alarm vigorously say “there is no pause, the earth is warming.”

            Climate alarmists like the word “pause” better than “decline.” “Pause” implies continuous unstoppable catastrophic warming – which will not ‘decline’ until we outlaw burning of fossil fuels – but there might be a tiny interruption, soon to end, and the rush to Venus resumes.

            I contend both terms should be annihilated in the debate. They are misleading.

            I contend that Climate Realists should not tolerate the idea of a “pause in warming” We should say “climate never pauses. It changes. Up and down in a sine curve, nature’s favorite lullaby.

            It’s part of my project to take the label “climate change” (by which crisis advocates mean “Human-caused climate catastrophe”) and turn it against them.

            Challenge by warming activist: “Do you deny climate change?”
            Response by climate realist: “On the contrary, I am a passionate affirmer of climate change.”
            Activist: “Oh. Good. Do you agree we should ban air travel, gasoline cars, and coal?”
            Realist: “No, those are benefits of capitalism, freedom, prosperity, and progress.”
            Activist: “Hypocrite!”
            Realist: “Climate changes. In waves of cycles within cycles within cycles.”

            I favor not letting OverAlarmists control the nomenclature, rules of debate, and imperatives. So, I’m delight to see any admission of “pause.”

  8. In order to continue to exist, the AGW assumption needs the validation of too much very unlikely hypothesis, which – while being independent from each other – must have occured simultaneously for millions years, while the main AGW assumption is itself contradicted by most of the climate history and actual data analysis.

    Furthermore, the AGW assumption needs permanent new adjustments (O3, CH4 meme, cows farts, Montreal protocol effects, etc.) so as not to be contradicted by current observations (the pause, Antartic cooling, etc.) which prooves that the assumption itself is nothing else that pseudo-science.

    Actual climate “scientists” should have adopted long time ago the Occam Razor’s principle and aknowledge that their CO2 and now O3 hypothesis (among a bunch of others that support the AGW), have rather nothing to do with climate and thus, that the AGW assumption is pure nonsense.

    • When nothing unnatural is happening to global temperatures on the observed facts over recent and proxy past, why is it even necessary to argue why this natural change is supportive of the need for immediate action spending trillions of $$$ to make our energy supply less capable and more expensive to no useful CO2 reduction effect. Ditto our food now.

      We know its really easy money for renewable energy rent takers, and a one size fits all roll back of developed civilisation by the UN IPCC. But the justification for it was never ,and is not, there.

      The simple fact that the massive wastes of money that are claimed to be necessary to protect us from a tiny in fact change added to the natural change by human CO2 emissions, that clearly has not happened over the 40 years it has been presented as settled science, so to claim this is a clear lie on the evidence, should end this nonsense, honestly presented. Why isn’t it being so presented?

  9. YES – a great conclusion! And very funny {8D

    BTW the cyclical variations of the sun’s output also effect the jetstream paths and velocities.
    (The solar cycle low output phase causing cooling and shrinking of earth’s atmosphere, compresses jetstream pathways into meanders where velocities increase).

    Could it have been noticeable in the jetstreams’ behaviour over the past couple of cycles, as the output gradually decreases into the Grand Minimum?
    (I’m no expert…)

    • McBryde,
      This is a pretty good article about the Jet Stream and the solar minimum.

      For a more detailed look at the science, click the link below:
      http://bit.ly/2yYgsZo
      “…WHAT THE SCIENCE SUGGESTS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING

      Research (linked below) shows blocking persistence increases when solar activity is low, causing weather patterns to become locked in place at high and intermediate latitudes for prolonged periods of time.

      During a solar minimum, the jet stream’s usual Zonal Flow (a west–east direction) reverts to more of a Meridional Flow (a north-south direction) — this is exaggerated further during a Grand Solar Minimum, like the one we’re likely entering now, and explains why regions become unseasonably hot or cold and others unusually dry or rainy, with the extremes lasting for an extended period of time.”

  10. I still don’t understand how low altitude CFCs produced in the northern hemisphere got to the stratosphere of the high latitudes of thesouthern hemisphere.

    • The usual answer is “mixing”, but I’m not sure that’s truly possible. I would think CFCs are molecularly much heavier than nitrogen that, no matter the energy doing the mixing, they would invariably sink to the bottom of the volume, not eventually rise to the top, no matter how short a time period.

      Even if that is the mechanism, I still figure there are nations (cough, cough, China) that are still manufacturing and using the CFCs that were “banned”, simply because they work, are no longer protected IP, and because they just don’t care about such matters.

  11. “it has been established that these trends were driven by ozone depletion in the Antarctic stratosphere due to emissions of ozone-depleting substances”

    Reading the substance provided in the head post, I doubt that statement will supported in the paper.

  12. This observation is in line with changes in North-Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seems now to be in the same phase than 1950, when the latest cooling phase began. Moreover, careful analysis of North Atlantic temperatures gives impression that they do not seem to be affected by atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration – at all. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339274895_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration_in_Atmosphere_Has_Negligible_Effect_on_North_Atlantic_Sea_Surface_Temperature

  13. I thought with all the data adjustments the pause had disappeared anyway. Maybe we are heading for a global cooling which would make transmission of things like the corona virus more serious. I think we need more funds to study this.

  14. I am being boring now. The climate has entered a 500 year cooling phase. Towards the same cyclic low it just warmed from, over the last 500 years. End of.

    The natural c.1,000 year, probably solar driven, cycle of 2 degrees or so range, is clearly observed, crudely in the time series data from ice cores over 1 Million years, and much more precisely in the three main frequencies observed in the Fourier power spectrum analysis of the same data over multiple cycles.

    It reached a maximum around 1998 when all three main cycles combined positively (in phase), and is now cooling.

    It may be procrastinating, but its going to get cooler, same as it has one thousand times in the ice cores alone, during glacial and interglacial periods – what looks like noise on ice age time scales is mostly these natural cycles. Take a section of the ice core data and run a frequency analysis on it if you doubt this.

    nb: The very clear and well used Fourier analysis OF ACTUAL DATA also clearly showed a lack of any significant monotonic signal in the frequency spectrum, which means any real AGW effect is undetectable in the actual record over the industrialising period.. So not affecting the cooling or warming we observe. “All we see is cycles”. RE the above, small local effects are not significant in this either.

    Local noise is interesting, if you live there or are an academic with a family to feed, or a department to fund with public money, or have to cope with environmental beliefs du jour when running your business to profit from the laws made in the name of “the science”, but is wholly irrelevant to the actual long term change in the planetary climate, real science versus consensual. “Human egos can’t stand nature’s indifference to them”.

    Just to repeat, for those interested in someone else’s serious observation based deterministic science of the global climate, rather than some pet transient local effect, the link shows the three main global, long term, 30 year average cycles found in the actual direct and proxy data observations, at the same amplitude and in pure sinusoidal form – to show synchronicity/timing only, and their effect when used to reconstruct the last 1,000 year cycle at the power levels actually observed. The power spectrum is also available in the Ludecke and Weiss paper, which has been refined during validation rather than disproven. Note these cycles correspond to the mediaeval and Roman warm periods in their mutually positive reinforcements., 1Ka at a time.NB: The frequencies observed in the temperature proxy data are also a close match with the f natural frequencies observed in the observations of cosmogenic proxies, determined to be caused by the effects of solar variation. Whatever the cause, the cycles are real.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/xxzejq7vb7c88nz/Ludecke%20und%20Weiss%20Graph.png?dl=0

    This presentation of an early version of the results is well worth a watch and is at:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-E5y9piHNU

    This s hard to deny because its easy to check and follows real scientific method, it’s not a model based on guesswork. The approach is deterministic, observations up, so real. Not theory down that the observations don’t support. etc.

    The natural millennial cycle is self evident, real and proven in the observed data by direct observations of ice core time series and using a basic analytical technique to show the contributing cycles that anyone competent can check. The science is settled, its just the not the science that the UN IPCC paid its activist undergraduate “scientists” to prove, of CO2 as the cause of most observed change, a claim which has been proven false both in the predictions using the distorted theoretical forcings and presumptions of its models re some key effects, like clouds, and its predictions consequently disproven by the observed data – what actually happened over the last 40 years showed the IPCC predictions to be wrong.

    The natural cycles and lack of AGW effect in them is revealed from the data, no detectable effect. In fact. Not a modeller’s guess.

    GLOBAL CLIMATE NEWS: The Longer Term Global Climate forecast calls for wholly natural change from planetary cycles. Cooling for the next 500 years, with short warm periods superimposed on the longer term cooling trend. A Little ice age is expected centred around 2,500AD, before a return to warming to a next maximum at around 3,000AD, still probably a half to one degree or so cooler than the current warm spell, as the next neo glacial phase of the 100,000 year ice age begins.

    Longer term property in the South is a sensible investment on a multi generational basis, with payback within 100 generations, as the Northern ice sheets physically reform on the continental landmasses. Mass population flows are expected to reverse as populations move towards the Equator, reversing the last movement towards the poles.

  15. From the article: “If we accept the study, climate models calibrated against pre-1980 temperatures are running way too hot, because in the pre-1980s period the anthropogenic global warming signature was being augmented by the deterioration of the ozone layer.”

    So it would have been colder pre-1980 that it actually was? The 1970’s was the coldest (I would have said “coolest” but you might get the wrong idea:) decade since the 1910’s.

  16. “What we showed is that after the year 2000, the effects of ozone recovery have actually been balancing the effects of increasing CO2, such that the position [of the jet stream] has remained approximately constant,” Banerjee told E&E News.

    The proposed effects cancel each other out. How conveeeeenient.

  17. One distortion offsets the other?

    The Man-Made Ozone Hole to the rescue of Man Made Global Warming. There is not only a certain symmetry to that, but also a certain truth, as both fictions are man-made

  18. “The easiest way to explain two powerful independent opposed forcings which just happen to perfectly balance each other, without the uncomfortable coincidence of perfect balance, is to assume neither forcing actually exists.”
    Pretty much my take on it too.
    Two forcing both of much the same quality of speculation.
    Climatology would read the same if they compared Dwarf Dust to Unicorn Flatulence.

    Neither “forcing”,the ozone hole nor the Warming due to atmospheric CO2 is based on empirical science.
    They both lack decent base lines and both lack a measured effect.

    Does speculation require error bars?

  19. I came up with a new response. I won’t mark it “/s” because it is neither sarcasm or serious.

    “Why can’t we just open the hole in the ozone layer and let all the CO2 out?”

    • How did those raising the Ozone Hole Alarm convince everyone to dismiss the Occam’s Razor Default that the hole has appeared millions of times over millions of years, waxing and waning like all the other natural organic patterns, and that the ‘current’ thinness was only a normal flux?

      Instead “We found a hole. It must be bad. Start the screaming.”

  20. If this study is to be believed (I think not), it basically says that one method to stop/reverse asserted AGW would be to place a large quantity of man-made ozone into the stratosphere over both the North and South poles.

    Thank you, Nature, for publicizing this elegant solution to “climate change” (i.e., for pointing us to the promised land).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *